Biden nominates racist black supremacist as DOJ Civil Rights head - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15152763
"Joe Biden recently nominated Kristen Clarke, president of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, as his choice for Assistant Attorney General to head the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division."

While at Harvard in 1994, Clarke wrote the following in an article:

Joe Biden recently nominated Kristen Clarke, president of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, as his choice for Assistant Attorney General to head the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division.

The announcement came when Biden nominated Judge Merrick Garland as his pick for Attorney General.

After the Clarke nomination, Fox News' Tucker Carlson Tonight host Tucker Carlson questioned Biden's decision by discussing statements she allegedly made as a student at Harvard University.

The Claim
Carlson said that while Clarke was president of Harvard University's Black Students Association, she compared Black vs. white genetics in an article she wrote for the student newspaper, The Harvard Crimson.

The Facts
On Carlson's show, he references a published article from The Harvard Crimson in 1994 that Clarke co-authored with fellow student Victoria Kennedy.

In the article, titled Blacks Seek an End to Abuse, Clarke and Kennedy introduced their piece by writing that it is "in response to those who defend The Bell Curve."

The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life is a novel written by Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray mentioned on Amazon as "the controversial book linking intelligence to class and race in modern society, and what public policy can do to mitigate socioeconomic differences in IQ, birth rate, crime, fertility, welfare, and poverty."

Carlson pulls out quotations from the beginning of Clarke and Kennedy's article, reading them to his Fox News audience that state:

"Please use the following theories and observations to assist you in your search for truth regarding the genetic differences between Blacks and whites.

"One: Dr. Richard King reveals that at the core of the human brain is the "locus coeruleus" which is a structure that is Black because it contains large amounts of neuro-melanin which is essential for its operation.

"Two: Black infants sit, stand, crawl and walk sooner than whites.

"Three: Carol Barnes notes that human mental processes are controlled by melanin—that same chemical which gives Blacks their superior physical and mental abilities.

It was meant to express an equally absurd point of view—fighting one ridiculous absurd racist theory with another ridiculous absurd theory.
Kristen Clarke

"Four: Some scientists have revealed that most whites are unable to produce melanin because their pineal glands are often calcified or non-functioning. Pineal calcification rates with Africans are five to 15 percent, Asians 15 to 25 percent and Europeans 60 to 80 percent. This is the chemical basis for the cultural differences between Blacks and whites.

"Five: Melanin endows Blacks with greater mental, physical and spiritual abilities—something which cannot be measured based on Eurocentric standards."

Carlson does not reference the rest of the article, which claims that the The Bell Curve is an "attack on Black people."


Clarke addressed recent criticism following Carlson's show in an interview with The Forward on Wednesday night when she again said that her article Blacks Seek an End to Abuse was a direct response to The Bell Curve.

The Forward reported Clarke saying that The Bell Curve "was generating wide acclaim for its racist views," so she introduced her article "with an absurd claim that Black people are superior based on the melanin in their skin" in order to "hold up a mirror to reflect how reprehensible the premise of Black inferiority was set."

"It was meant to express an equally absurd point of view—fighting one ridiculous absurd racist theory with another ridiculous absurd theory," Clarke told The Forward.


Although she did not address Carlson's criticisms directly, she claimed in her interview that conservative outlets are "putting out a lot of false and twisted information."

The Ruling
True.


Despite Clarke's recent assertions that her 1994 co-authored article for The Harvard Crimson was meant to "express an equally absurd point of view," it is not stated in the article that her and Kennedy's claims on Black vs. white genetics were not serious at the time.


Ultimately, she did write about Black vs. white genetics, although she said it was written in response to The Bell Curve.

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did ... cs-1561781

Replace black/Africans with white/Caucasians and clearly this is the most awful kind of racial supremacy theory and pseudoscientific racism.

Also:
[Clarke] said it was a mistake to have invited the author of an anti-Semitic screed to speak at Harvard when she headed a black student group there.

In 1994, Clarke as the leader of a Black Student Association invited Tony Martin, author of a book called “The Jewish Onslaught,” to speak and defended him afterward. Jews on campus at the time were appalled by the invitation.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/top-biden ... o-harvard/

After he spoke and she came under fire, Clarke defended him saying "Professor Martin is an intelligent, well-versed Black intellectual who bases his information on indisputable fact". :?:
Last edited by noemon on 25 Jan 2021 17:43, edited 1 time in total. Reason: OP edited to included entire Newsweek article.
#15152795
Unthinking Majority wrote:"Joe Biden recently nominated Kristen Clarke, president of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, as his choice for Assistant Attorney General to head the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division."

While at Harvard in 1994, Clarke wrote the following in an article:


https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did ... cs-1561781

Replace black/Africans with white/Caucasians and clearly this is the most awful kind of racial supremacy theory and pseudoscientific racism.


I agree. Their satirical portrayal of the logic and pseudoscience of The Bell Curve shows exactly just how racist The Bell Curve is.

The Bell Curve uses the same mix of pseudoscience, fact, opinion, and insinuation, and like you said, uses whites instead of blacks. And like you said, is the most awful kind of racial supremacy theory and pseudoscientific racism.

Also:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/top-biden ... o-harvard/

After he spoke and she came under fire, Clarke defended him saying "Professor Martin is an intelligent, well-versed Black intellectual who bases his information on indisputable fact". :?:


If you kick everyone out of the US government if they supported a racist Israeli at one time, that would be awesome, and it would empty Washington, which is also awesome.
#15152858
newsweek wrote:Although she did not address Carlson's criticisms directly, she claimed in her interview that conservative outlets are "putting out a lot of false and twisted information."

The Ruling
True.

Despite Clarke's recent assertions that her 1994 co-authored article for The Harvard Crimson was meant to "express an equally absurd point of view," it is not stated in the article that her and Kennedy's claims on Black vs. white genetics were not serious at the time.


Ultimately, she did write about Black vs. white genetics, although she said it was written in response to The Bell Curve.


Based on this, thread title stands as originally posted.
#15152863
Pants-of-dog wrote:I agree. Their satirical portrayal of the logic and pseudoscience of The Bell Curve shows exactly just how racist The Bell Curve is.

The Bell Curve uses the same mix of pseudoscience, fact, opinion, and insinuation, and like you said, uses whites instead of blacks. And like you said, is the most awful kind of racial supremacy theory and pseudoscientific racism.

It's no surprise that you're defending her. Satire? From Newsweek's fact-check in the OP:

"Despite Clarke's recent assertions that her 1994 co-authored article for The Harvard Crimson was meant to "express an equally absurd point of view," it is not stated in the article that her and Kennedy's claims on Black vs. white genetics were not serious at the time."

I've seen these same melanin theories from racist black supremacists before. From a leader of BLM Toronto chapter: https://archive.fo/kpjIG/e8a79ca1246ad6 ... 3bde88.jpg

If you kick everyone out of the US government if they supported a racist Israeli at one time, that would be awesome, and it would empty Washington, which is also awesome.

Glad you agree that kicking her and all the other racists out of Washington would be awesome.
#15152864
Beren wrote:My bad, thank you. A somewhat more objective thread title definitely wouldn't make sense, she must be a Harvard-educated racist black supremacist indeed. I'm really sorry for having bothered you with that.

Shortly after she co-penned the article she invited a racist anti-semitic black prof to speak at Harvard, and then defended him against criticism as "an intelligent, well-versed Black intellectual who bases his information on indisputable fact." The proof is in the pudding.
#15152866
Unthinking Majority wrote:Shortly after she co-penned the article she invited a racist anti-semitic black prof to speak at Harvard. The proof is in the pudding.

It still proves nothing because it could have been a provocation as well. Have you ever attended college?

"an intelligent, well-versed Black intellectual who bases his information on indisputable fact."

:lol:
#15152871
Unthinking Majority wrote:It's no surprise that you're defending her. Satire? From Newsweek's fact-check in the OP:

"Despite Clarke's recent assertions that her 1994 co-authored article for The Harvard Crimson was meant to "express an equally absurd point of view," it is not stated in the article that her and Kennedy's claims on Black vs. white genetics were not serious at the time."


You are correct that it does not explicitly state that it is satire. It is still satire.

But I agree that her audience would need to have this pointed out to them.

I've seen these same melanin theories from racist black supremacists before. From a leader of BLM Toronto chapter: https://archive.fo/kpjIG/e8a79ca1246ad6 ... 3bde88.jpg


Just because someone else somewhere else said something similar and not as satire does not, in any way, change the fact that the original Harvard article was satire.

Glad you agree that kicking her and all the other racists out of Washington would be awesome.


Yes, I have no problem with dismantling the US government.
#15152876
Beren wrote:Because they were unthinking too? Pointing out that it was satire would have ruined the whole thing.


No it wouldn't have. All satire contains a disclaimer somewhere.

You are approaching this the wrong way.

The question is, if cons and other racists argue this then that leaves them with very little wiggle about what is racist. And that's the important bit.

Second noone is expected to hold the same views from 20-30 years ago.
#15152877
noemon wrote:No it wouldn't have. All satire contains a disclaimer somewhere.

It would have because she really meant to pretend to be serious. It was an essential part of the prank, which it actually was, such a disclaimer would have ruined the prank itself. However, she's where she is and she is what she is today for a reason, which is not that she is a racist black supremacist.
#15152885
Pants-of-dog wrote:You are correct that it does not explicitly state that it is satire. It is still satire.

But I agree that her audience would need to have this pointed out to them.

Was inviting an anti-Semite speaker to campus also satire? Was defending him after he spoke by saying "Professor Martin is an intelligent, well-versed Black intellectual who bases his information on indisputable fact" also satire?
#15152887
Unthinking Majority wrote:Was inviting an anti-Semite speaker to campus also satire? Was defending him after he spoke by saying "Professor Martin is an intelligent, well-versed Black intellectual who bases his information on indisputable fact" also satire?


Did I claim it was? I pointed out, correctly, that the article on genetics was satire. I made no claim about this person invited to speak.

This woman thinks that inviting this person was a mistake and that she should never have done it. So she agrees with you. And it is her opinion that seems like the relevant one.
#15152890
Pants-of-dog wrote:This woman thinks that inviting this person was a mistake and that she should never have done it. So she agrees with you. And it is her opinion that seems like the relevant one.

She's very right, it was a mistake and she shouldn't have done it. It still happened. I'm supposed to feel bad for her?

If you think it's satire you're entitled to your opinion. The only evidence that it's "satire" is her claiming it was 25 years later while doing PR damage control.

Hollywood films are inaccurate generally , when d[…]

US bombs Syria

Please...please...please Biden don't be a war hun[…]

Atheism is Evil

it is impossible to do good without God. The Eut[…]

The point of middle-management is to get screwed b[…]